2023考研英語閱讀破舊的藍(lán)色警戒線
The battered blue line 破舊的藍(lán)色警戒線
New police powers will only go so far in dealing withrioters 對(duì)付暴動(dòng)者，警方新的權(quán)力也只能做這么多
AS HUNDREDS of thousands of people marchedpeacefully through central London in a rally againstthe governments spending cuts on March 26th, ahundred or so vandals, thought to be extremeanarchists and anti-capitalists, rampaged nearby.Banks and upmarket retailers near The Economistsoffices still bear the scars of the mayhem. Not for thefirst time, the Metropolitan Police stands accused ofmishandling the unrest.
3月26日，成百上千的游行者和平的走過倫敦中央，抗議政府削減開支，這時(shí)一百多個(gè)暴民在附近進(jìn)行大肆破壞，他們是極端無政府主義以及反資本主義者。在《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》辦公室附近的銀行和奢侈品零售商還保留著暴力混亂的傷痕。倫敦的警察已經(jīng)不是第一次被責(zé)備沒有處理好動(dòng)蕩了。
Even when attacked with missilesincluding, reportedly, ammonia-filled lightbulbsofficers wererestrained. They stood off as shop fronts were trashed and small fires were lit. There seemed little excuse for being caught out by thetrouble: it had been planned online; there was violence at a protest against higher university-tuition fees three months earlier.
就算是遭到投擲物的襲擊據(jù)說包括充滿氨氣的電燈泡警察們都十分控制，沒有采取回?fù)簟Ｉ痰觊T面被砸碎，有小火點(diǎn)燃，他們都不上前阻止。警方不應(yīng)有任何借口對(duì)此次沖突毫無防備：這次游行是通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)計(jì)劃的;而且3個(gè)月前抗議大學(xué)提高學(xué)費(fèi)時(shí)也有暴力發(fā)生。
Yet the police could be forgiven for feeling exasperated by this criticism. After all, their handlingof some previous demonstrations in London was condemned as too harsh. The tactic ofkettling protestersdetaining them for extended periods within cordons of officershasattracted controversy. The case of Ian Tomlinson, who was pushed to the ground by a policeofficer during a protest in 2009 and later died, is the subject of an ongoing inquiry.
人們應(yīng)該原諒警方對(duì)此類批評(píng)表示憤怒。畢竟他們曾經(jīng)被譴責(zé)在處理的一些倫敦的抗議時(shí)太過嚴(yán)厲。他們軟攻抗議者的方式即將他們長時(shí)間圍困在警戒線內(nèi)引起了爭議。Ian Tomlinson在2009年的一次游行中被一名警官推倒在地并且后來喪了命，這一案例便是人們一直詢問的主題。
It might be impossible to strike a Goldilocks-style balanceneither too tolerant nor too toughthat would please everybody. But there is a palpable need for consistent rules ofengagement. There are likely to be more big marches in the coming years, as thegovernments cuts bite. Even Prince Williams wedding to Kate Middleton on April 29th ispurportedly being targeted by unruly demonstrators.
若想以金發(fā)姑娘式的平衡罷工即不顯軟弱又不過于激烈來取悅所有的人，似乎不太可能。但至少我們需要一個(gè)一致的規(guī)則來處理這類問題。在接下來的幾年里，政府削減開支的結(jié)果一一顯露，很有可能會(huì)有更大的游行。甚至威廉王子和凱特在4月29日的婚禮都傳言將成為那些無法管制的游行示威者的目標(biāo)。
On March 28th Theresa May, the home secretary, said that she would consider giving the policemore powers for future protests. Preventive measures that helped to ease Britains once-endemic problem of football hooliganism could be adopted. For example, rogue elements couldbe banned from attending marches . Mrs May hinted that the police should use existing powers toforce protesters to remove the balaclavas and face-coverings often worn by rioters. Manywould like her to go further. Andy Hayman, a former assistant commissioner of the Met,suggests dawn raids on known troublemakers homes.
3月28日，內(nèi)政大臣Theresa May說她想給警察更多的權(quán)力來應(yīng)對(duì)未來的抗議活動(dòng)。政府可以采用曾經(jīng)用來減緩英國一時(shí)成災(zāi)的足球流氓問題的防御措施。例如可以人們禁止參加游行時(shí)使用危險(xiǎn)器械。May女士暗示到警察應(yīng)運(yùn)用現(xiàn)有的權(quán)力來強(qiáng)迫抗議者摘下那些劫販經(jīng)常帶的巴拉克拉瓦帽以及面罩。很多人希望她能更進(jìn)一步將想法付諸實(shí)踐。前警察局局長助理Andy Hayman建議對(duì)那些已證實(shí)的鬧事者進(jìn)行黎明突襲。
New rules and powers, however, will only help to deal with the most hardened and violentrioters. A larger, trickier group are clever enough to cause trouble while staying within whateverlaws prevail at the time. Disruption and intimidation that stops short of actual violence arebecoming their speciality.
然而新的規(guī)則和權(quán)力也只能用來對(duì)付那些最為極端的暴力抗議者。有一部分人十分聰明，他們可以在不違背當(dāng)時(shí)存在的任何法律的前提下制造麻煩，而且這一部分人人數(shù)更多，更難對(duì)付。他們最擅長的是在不發(fā)生真正暴力的情況下進(jìn)行破壞及恐嚇。
In any case, the allegedly lax line taken by the police towards the violence probably has less todo with their powers than with fears of being accused of brutality. Britain has lived throughangry political epochs before: there were riots against the poll tax in 1990, for example. Butin those days a police officers every action was not filmed on protesters mobile-phonecameras. The technology enables scrutiny. It also risks shaping a policing strategy that errson the side of passivity.
不管怎樣，傳言中警察對(duì)暴力事件管制極為克制這件事可能與他們的權(quán)力沒有太大關(guān)系，更重要的是他們害怕被指責(zé)過于野蠻。英國曾經(jīng)經(jīng)歷過憤怒的警察的時(shí)代：比如1900年時(shí)曾經(jīng)因?yàn)橥镀倍惗l(fā)生過暴亂。但那個(gè)年代警官的一舉一動(dòng)并不會(huì)被抗議者的手機(jī)相機(jī)錄下來。科技使人們能夠更為仔細(xì)嚴(yán)格的審查。但科技同時(shí)也有可能造成錯(cuò)誤的警務(wù)戰(zhàn)略，使其變得更被動(dòng)。
The battered blue line 破舊的藍(lán)色警戒線
New police powers will only go so far in dealing withrioters 對(duì)付暴動(dòng)者，警方新的權(quán)力也只能做這么多
AS HUNDREDS of thousands of people marchedpeacefully through central London in a rally againstthe governments spending cuts on March 26th, ahundred or so vandals, thought to be extremeanarchists and anti-capitalists, rampaged nearby.Banks and upmarket retailers near The Economistsoffices still bear the scars of the mayhem. Not for thefirst time, the Metropolitan Police stands accused ofmishandling the unrest.
3月26日，成百上千的游行者和平的走過倫敦中央，抗議政府削減開支，這時(shí)一百多個(gè)暴民在附近進(jìn)行大肆破壞，他們是極端無政府主義以及反資本主義者。在《經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人》辦公室附近的銀行和奢侈品零售商還保留著暴力混亂的傷痕。倫敦的警察已經(jīng)不是第一次被責(zé)備沒有處理好動(dòng)蕩了。
Even when attacked with missilesincluding, reportedly, ammonia-filled lightbulbsofficers wererestrained. They stood off as shop fronts were trashed and small fires were lit. There seemed little excuse for being caught out by thetrouble: it had been planned online; there was violence at a protest against higher university-tuition fees three months earlier.
就算是遭到投擲物的襲擊據(jù)說包括充滿氨氣的電燈泡警察們都十分控制，沒有采取回?fù)簟Ｉ痰觊T面被砸碎，有小火點(diǎn)燃，他們都不上前阻止。警方不應(yīng)有任何借口對(duì)此次沖突毫無防備：這次游行是通過網(wǎng)絡(luò)計(jì)劃的;而且3個(gè)月前抗議大學(xué)提高學(xué)費(fèi)時(shí)也有暴力發(fā)生。
Yet the police could be forgiven for feeling exasperated by this criticism. After all, their handlingof some previous demonstrations in London was condemned as too harsh. The tactic ofkettling protestersdetaining them for extended periods within cordons of officershasattracted controversy. The case of Ian Tomlinson, who was pushed to the ground by a policeofficer during a protest in 2009 and later died, is the subject of an ongoing inquiry.
人們應(yīng)該原諒警方對(duì)此類批評(píng)表示憤怒。畢竟他們曾經(jīng)被譴責(zé)在處理的一些倫敦的抗議時(shí)太過嚴(yán)厲。他們軟攻抗議者的方式即將他們長時(shí)間圍困在警戒線內(nèi)引起了爭議。Ian Tomlinson在2009年的一次游行中被一名警官推倒在地并且后來喪了命，這一案例便是人們一直詢問的主題。
It might be impossible to strike a Goldilocks-style balanceneither too tolerant nor too toughthat would please everybody. But there is a palpable need for consistent rules ofengagement. There are likely to be more big marches in the coming years, as thegovernments cuts bite. Even Prince Williams wedding to Kate Middleton on April 29th ispurportedly being targeted by unruly demonstrators.
若想以金發(fā)姑娘式的平衡罷工即不顯軟弱又不過于激烈來取悅所有的人，似乎不太可能。但至少我們需要一個(gè)一致的規(guī)則來處理這類問題。在接下來的幾年里，政府削減開支的結(jié)果一一顯露，很有可能會(huì)有更大的游行。甚至威廉王子和凱特在4月29日的婚禮都傳言將成為那些無法管制的游行示威者的目標(biāo)。
On March 28th Theresa May, the home secretary, said that she would consider giving the policemore powers for future protests. Preventive measures that helped to ease Britains once-endemic problem of football hooliganism could be adopted. For example, rogue elements couldbe banned from attending marches . Mrs May hinted that the police should use existing powers toforce protesters to remove the balaclavas and face-coverings often worn by rioters. Manywould like her to go further. Andy Hayman, a former assistant commissioner of the Met,suggests dawn raids on known troublemakers homes.
3月28日，內(nèi)政大臣Theresa May說她想給警察更多的權(quán)力來應(yīng)對(duì)未來的抗議活動(dòng)。政府可以采用曾經(jīng)用來減緩英國一時(shí)成災(zāi)的足球流氓問題的防御措施。例如可以人們禁止參加游行時(shí)使用危險(xiǎn)器械。May女士暗示到警察應(yīng)運(yùn)用現(xiàn)有的權(quán)力來強(qiáng)迫抗議者摘下那些劫販經(jīng)常帶的巴拉克拉瓦帽以及面罩。很多人希望她能更進(jìn)一步將想法付諸實(shí)踐。前警察局局長助理Andy Hayman建議對(duì)那些已證實(shí)的鬧事者進(jìn)行黎明突襲。
New rules and powers, however, will only help to deal with the most hardened and violentrioters. A larger, trickier group are clever enough to cause trouble while staying within whateverlaws prevail at the time. Disruption and intimidation that stops short of actual violence arebecoming their speciality.
然而新的規(guī)則和權(quán)力也只能用來對(duì)付那些最為極端的暴力抗議者。有一部分人十分聰明，他們可以在不違背當(dāng)時(shí)存在的任何法律的前提下制造麻煩，而且這一部分人人數(shù)更多，更難對(duì)付。他們最擅長的是在不發(fā)生真正暴力的情況下進(jìn)行破壞及恐嚇。
In any case, the allegedly lax line taken by the police towards the violence probably has less todo with their powers than with fears of being accused of brutality. Britain has lived throughangry political epochs before: there were riots against the poll tax in 1990, for example. Butin those days a police officers every action was not filmed on protesters mobile-phonecameras. The technology enables scrutiny. It also risks shaping a policing strategy that errson the side of passivity.
不管怎樣，傳言中警察對(duì)暴力事件管制極為克制這件事可能與他們的權(quán)力沒有太大關(guān)系，更重要的是他們害怕被指責(zé)過于野蠻。英國曾經(jīng)經(jīng)歷過憤怒的警察的時(shí)代：比如1900年時(shí)曾經(jīng)因?yàn)橥镀倍惗l(fā)生過暴亂。但那個(gè)年代警官的一舉一動(dòng)并不會(huì)被抗議者的手機(jī)相機(jī)錄下來。科技使人們能夠更為仔細(xì)嚴(yán)格的審查。但科技同時(shí)也有可能造成錯(cuò)誤的警務(wù)戰(zhàn)略，使其變得更被動(dòng)。
